“It’s up to Searyl to decide how they identify, when they are old enough to develop their own gender identity. I am not going to foreclose that choice based on an arbitrary assignment of gender at birth based on an inspection of their genitals.”

—Statement released by Katy Doty, Canadian non-binary transgender activist and mother of Searyl Atli Doty, upon it’s birth.

Let’s stipulate a few things before we get into the muck and mire, as well as the “ick” and “Are you kidding me?”…1. As the mother of Searyl, who I recommend trademark that name quick before a drug company uses it for te latest product that will do something to alleviate some dread disease if a sufferer is willing to risk dozens of equally dread side-effects listed at the end of a TV commercial, Katy has every right to do this

2.Katy’s using her just born child as a political and a political prop. She thus qualifies as a soul-less, radical mother who puts her political obsessions over her obligations to her own child, and a great candidate to be an awful parent.

Good luck, Searyl Atli, but I think you are doomed.

3. That name isn’t going to do the kid—can we agree it’s a kid, Katy?—any good either. Giving a child anything but a name that will allow him or her to go through life without a needless and gratuitous handicap nailed to them by parents amusing themselves, grandstanding or turning their offspring into a billboard is a form of child abuse. Being saddled with a name nobody can pronounce—Seerill? See-Ay-rill? See-Ay-RILE? Wait… is this name really an illiterate spelling of Cyril?— or spell will rob anyone of about a thousand hours before they are 60, if they are lucky.

Why would a mother inflict this on a child? Because the mother is a selfish jerk, that’s why.

4. This is grandstanding, narrow-focused virtue-signaling, and worse.

5. Someone, indeed a chorus, should have the guts to tell Katy how annoying she is, as well as unethical.

6. The trans community is apparently sitting up at night trying to figure out ways to look ridiculous and make public nuisances of themselves. This is typical of aggressive minority groups trying to get recognition and power, but it’s still incompetent and irresponsible.

Katy is Canadian, and officials in Canada, who are apparently no more likely to show any backbone than most officials when social justice warriors foaming from the mouth are after them, issued the baby a “health card” that does not specify gender so little Searyl can participate in their socialized health care . Gender Free ID Coalition, a group that crusades against gender identifiers on government documents because it is stereotyping or something sees this as a victory in their effort to make life far more complicated for everyone because it is unfortunately complicated for the gender-confused.

This is what happens when you let the nose of a flatulent and rude camel into your tent. Those with gender issues should not be abused, beaten, or discriminated against. Agreed. They should have access to medical treatment connected to their condition. Absolutely. They should be able to openly declare their status without fear of reprisals, and people with compassion, manners and ethics shouldn’t teat them like freaks. Got it.

But they do not have leave to re-make the world in their image, and cry foul if the majority draws reasonable lines and says: No. Behave.

Pronouns are useful. They have served as well. Sorry they don’t work for you, trans buddy, but you’re just going to have to cope. Columnist Leonard Pitts, a sympathetic sort, stated it well:

[I]n the notion of a genderless humanity we arrive at the proverbial bridge too far. Yes, I know some people are born anatomically neither male nor female. I’m not talking about them. Nor have I any beef with the child born into a male body who feels emotionally estranged from that body and takes steps, whether surgical or cosmetic, to rectify the problem. Good for him. And her.What I have trouble with is the idea that we somehow commit a sin against enlightenment when we identify that baby’s body as male in the first place. What I find problematic is the notion that we should look upon this child with his XY chromosome and a little stub of flesh between his legs that will someday be capable of producing sperm, and pretend we have no idea what he is.

[Irresistible tangent: But all of the Left is obsessed with this kind of attempted self-hypnosis to accept what isn’t true as fact in 2017. Never mind that every study and experience shows that a high minimum wage costs jobs and kills business: it’s good, that all! Never mind that single payer health care is cripplingly expensive: let’s do it! Never mind that Islam is a religion that produces terrorists because it calls on believer to kill people: Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism! And, of course, Mike Brown was shot by a racist cop as the Gentle Giant screamed, “Don’t Shoot!”]

There is another unethical aspect to what Katy is doing. She is forcing a dilemma on an innocent child that he or she does not need, or deserve. The vast, vast number of children are immediately and successfully guided to a perfectly acceptable, standard and secure gender identity that matches their chromosomes, external organs, development and appearance. They have an immediate peer group, and they don’t have to be anxious about, say, what bathroom they use. They don’t have to decide anything. This is healthy. This works.

Katy, who is an anomaly, has concluded, as self-obsessed, self-righteous and arrogant people often do, that her way is the best way and the only desirable way, and that everyone should be like her. Thus she wants to create confusion and uncertainty for her child: she is intentionally creating circumstances calculated to create gender confusion for her own child, with all of its potential attendant consequences, including surgery and psychiatric treatments. It isn’t enough, apparently, that little Searyl Atli is already going to be burdened by a having parent who will not be a helpful role model in deciding how a female or a male acts.

79 responses to “If “A Boy Named Sue” Had Problems, What’s Chance Does An IT Named Searyl Have?”

The name makes me shrug. I’ve heard of way worse than that. It has vowels and consonants that are arranged in a way that makes sense in English, and together the possible sounds that arrangement could make are not associated with any negative things in our culture.

As far as the “genderless” attempt, well, good luck. As soon as it’s known whether the kid has an innie or an outie, other people will assign one to him/her. It’s inevitable.

Well, first you have to demonstrate that the conduct in question is unethical before it can be rationalized.

I’ve heard of some terrible names which might rise to the level of unethical, bordering on abusive. “Searyl” doesn’t come close. No more than “Seamus” or “Siobhan” in the name sweepstakes. Someone will hazard a guess, and Searyl will correct the pronunciation if they got it wrong. And everyone will move on with their lives. Unless you think it is inherently unethical to give someone an unusual name and/or an unusual spelling (good luck, that horse has left the barn a long time ago and there’s no getting him back), I don’t think Searyl even begins to meet the metric of being unethical.

As far as this person’s attempt to raise the child “genderless”, I think it is dumb, and futile, but not really unethical, depending on the execution. Children start becoming aware of gender differences around 2-3. Chances are quite likely that the child will assign itself a gender that is probably aligned with its genitalia. Because parents aren’t the only people who give gender to a child, everyone else does too. And given the exhibitionist nature of most young children, people will know what set the kid has. And those people will tell other people, either explicitly or through pronouns and such, unconsciously. So it’s somewhat pointless, but interesting. I guess it can be nice for a kid not to have to fit into a parent’s rigid expectations of sex roles if they don’t want to?

“And those people will tell other people, either explicitly or through pronouns and such, unconsciously. ”

…except that in Canada, mistaking a gender pronoun can have so seriously traumatizing consequences. They have made it a crime, albeit without a successful prosecution yet.

Wanna bet Mom will be just waiting to pounce on an innocent, ignorant slip on behalf of some person who is represents deep pockets, and makes more fame for herself and some pocket change at the same time?

“If he was found guilty by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, he would have been doing something illegal but not criminal,” Cossman says. In other words, he wouldn’t go to jail. Jail is only a punishment for committing a criminal offence—a violation of the Criminal Code.

If Peterson was found to be in violation of the code, there are different possible remedies. He could be ordered to pay money, he could be ordered to correct the behaviour, he could be ordered to go to training, etc.”

I am not familiar with Canadian law in terms of differentiating “illegal” and “criminal.” I personally would say that a law that made me liable to being hauled before a court, in this case the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, and subjected to fines, orders to “correct” my behavior, training and etc. (wonder what etc. will include) would certainly make me feel like I was being treated as a criminal. Peterson may be overstating what the law is intended to do but Crossman in her rebuttal admits that the law can impose sanctions for failure to use an individual’s preferred pronoun.

There is also danger of broad laws being misapplied. There have been cases in the United States where opponents of a law were assured they shouldn’t be worried about misapplication of that law because prosecutors would use their discretion. Unfortunately when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail and the next thing you know we have situations where teens who engage in sexting are being tried as adults on child pornography charges. The trend with most such laws seems to be for prosecutors to apply them as broadly and as harshly as they can. Why would this law be treated any differently?

slick, the problem with constantly bashing sources is that when they’re proven right and you’re proven wrong, it makes you look unreliable and makes the source you bashed look more reliable.

In this case the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies is right, and you are wrong; there is nothing in the law that criminalizes using the wrong gender pronouns. You believed that because it fit your confirmation bias; you want to believe the absolute worst of the left.

Did you read what JB said above? You are parsing terms over ‘criminality.’ The law sanctions you. End of story. And it has an open door for worse written into the code.

“…you want to believe the absolute worst of the left.”

Given the conduct of the left the past few months, I don’t have to ‘believe’ anything, just read the (fake) news. Progressives have a long way to go before they deserve to be believed. If the NYT said the sky was blue, I want a window to independently verify the fact. It has gotten that bad.

Chris, progressives believe it is okay to lie if it results in a change they want. ‘Ends justify the means.’ Human beings are prone to this behavior, but the left has raised it to a new art form.

Until your side can come to the table in good faith (and I include the Establishment GOP in ‘your side’) everything should be taken with a grain, no, a pound of salt. Progressives own the major media outlets, and are willing to work together for the big win: Socialism in America. Notice the inconsistency within progressivism: feminism, yet Bill Clinton was untouchable, and second class citizenship for Christians and women in Muslim countries is not discussed. Gay rights, yet we support Muslims (who THROW GAYS OFF BUILDINGS.)

But back to the media. Virtually EVERYTHING is designed to sway public opinion. Every news story, every movie, every TV show, you name it, is done on purpose. Even Facebook memes and stories are planted by those who wish to influence our families.

“One thing you can count on is that most every image that crosses your path has been put there for a reason. Nothing happens by accident. What you need to ask yourself isn’t so much Is it true, but Who wants me to believe it—and why?” -Sharyl Attkisson

Chris, you are being lied to, by those who you count on to stay informed.

There are 100 gender-neutral names that she could have picked, names used by both girls and boys such as Morgan, Kim, Jamie, or Chris. Any of those names that would accommodate her dedication to giving the child gender options without forcing the child to be a walking advertisement for mom’s eccentricities.

Many children want nothing more than to fit in with their peers. Issues of popularity and social acceptance cause many more children distress than issues of gender identity ever have. By choosing a unique and bizarre name, that child’s parents have guaranteed that the kid will struggle with this. Furthermore, the child’s sexually ambiguous name will make “Is that a boy or girl?” the first thing many people ask when meeting him/her.

It seems to me that mom is validating the notion that gender identity is a personal choice rather than a biological one.
How can she argue against those who advocate for counseling to “cure” people who are not “normal” heterosexuals.

Not only has she burdened the child who may very well be both heterosexually oriented and biologically/psychologically oriented to its birth gender, she has given ammunition to those who believe these are curable psychological disorders.

Allow me to play devils advocate here (This is my interpretation of her argument, not my argument. I personally think this is an atrocious idea).

The mother does not wish to validate the notion that gender is “choice”; rather, she wishes to unburden the child from feeling pressured to conform to its presumed gender. She wishes the child’s natural gender expression to emerge unencumbered.

Yes, Rich. Chris Marschner’s comparison makes absolutelyno sense. The mother is trying to protect her child from social pressures to conform to a certain gender. How could that possibly add fuel to the idea that gay people should be pressured into turning straight?

That said, the mother’s actions here are over-the-top and probably useless–there is a 99% chance the child will be a cis man.

The mother has guaranteed that there will be endless unanswerable questions or lengthily burdensome answers every time someone asks as they inevitably will, “Is that a boy or a girl’s name.” This is the opposite of freed from the gender discussion. About as opposite as it’s possible to be given the name, the refusal to speak in gender terms and the activism which leaves the mother with nothing else to do apparently but create issues where none exist and then angrily deal with them. Poor kid.

“The mother has guaranteed that there will be endless unanswerable questions or lengthily burdensome answers every time someone asks as they inevitably will, “Is that a boy or a girl’s name.”

I think that’s exactly what she wants. Every time someone asks that question, it gives her a chance to give a sermon about the evils of gender roles and how she chose to raise her child on the path to gender-fluid enlightenment.

No Chris, this is an aspect about the Social Construct argument that I don’t think that the left fully appreciates yet. Part of the reason that gay activists pushed “Born This Way”, even despite some studies that said that it might not be entirely true, was because the alternative was… problematic. If as opposed to being born gay, you were made gay, or chose to be gay, then it opened the door to things like conversion therapy. It legitimized people who wanted to change us.

More than that, “Born This Way” gave gay people a path to equality, if we are born this way, as opposed to made this way, or chose to be this way, then being gay naturally falls into the category of “things outside of one’s control, that should not be discriminated against.”

Personally, I prefer the angle of “things that conceivably may be within one’s control, but probably aren’t, depending on the individual, but which should not be discriminated against regardless, because it’s not actually a problem.” If there’s a downside to intellectual honesty, I haven’t found one yet.

You’re right that the LGBT community has had internal controversy over the “born this way” issue. At times this had led to erasure of bisexuals within the gay community; the existence of bisexual people is still seen as a threat to some gay people because it seems to imply that people can just switch between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

But even if one believes that sexuality is not at all in-born and is totally developed through time, that does not in any way justify coercive conversion therapy. This was the original statement I was responding to:

“It seems to me that mom is validating the notion that gender identity is a personal choice rather than a biological one.
How can she argue against those who advocate for counseling to “cure” people who are not “normal” heterosexuals.

Not only has she burdened the child who may very well be both heterosexually oriented and biologically/psychologically oriented to its birth gender, she has given ammunition to those who believe these are curable psychological disorders.”

There are so many leaps of logic here that it’s dizzying. Marschner jumps from “gender identity isn’t biological” to “gender identity is a personal choice,” totally bypassing “gender identity is formed and solidified through environmental factors over time,” which would be a natural middle ground there. Then he jumps from this theory of gender identity to apply it to sexuality, as if those must correspond identically and follow exactly the same “rules.” Then he jumps from “sexuality is a personal choice” to “homosexuality is bad and should be cured,” which makes absolutely no sense; even if people could choose to be either heterosexual or homosexual, how would it follow that it is not wrong to try and “cure” people of homosexuality? If anything, I’d expect that if most human beings could simply decide whether to be attracted to men or women on any given day, there would be less homophobia in the world, not more.

So no, even if sexuality were a “personal choice,” that would not justify attempts to “cure” someone of homosexuality.

I agree with your interpretation but my point was that it could give those who push the idea that non straight people can be counseled and thus “cured”. This would not be helpful.

I was using quotes around normal and cured to reflect others ideas not mine.

Nonetheless, social presures begin in the home. Parental expectations guide and place enormous pressure on the children living in the household. Kate and spouse can simply model their beliefs and not pressure stereotypical gender behaviors of the child. Only then will it truly be the child’s choice.

Chris’ reply seems to ignore the reality that people will use the words of their adversaries to buttress their own arguement.

I see what you mean more clearly, Marschner. But this isn’t a hypothetical; ex-gay therapists HAVE used the language of some LGBT activists who argue “sexuality is fluid” in order to justify their coercive practices. Their arguments are bad for the reasons I stated above.

There are a lot of people who are having the biggest issue with THEY instead of s/he and him/her. It takes a lot of getting used to, especially if you’re a technical grammarian. I’ve heard plenty of folks who are totally on board with all other aspects trip on this and feel awful (I get it, but come on, we’re all learning). It always makes me blink, because grammar is inherent in my brain, and it smacks of plural where there shouldn’t be any. But between personal experience with people and the training from my day job regarding asking for a preferred pronoun, I’m getting more used to it. It’s a new century. And apparently I’m officially old.

Given that our nation, though our nation was granted a secular structure by the Founders in the form of the Constitution, it definitively started with a set of cultural values grounded in the Judeo-Christian world-view*, I’ll pose a quick lesser of two evils ethics quiz based on a set of values derived from the Judeo-Christian worldview and the hyper-leftist extreme which derives many of its positions intentionally in opposition to the former, though several positions are just mis-weighed application of western values:

You have to pick one:

1) Removing a child from his/her parents because those parents teach gender binary and actively cultivate their child in whichever direction they were born.

2) Removing a child from his/her parents because they engage in essentially the episode above (though you could insert other episodes like the mother dressing her son in drag at age 11 I think it was). Which Jack makes a pretty good argument for it being borderline or just-over-the-line-but-not-legally-actionable child-abuse.

*Yes, I know there’s a wide open debate and potential discussion on whether or not we even arrive at a Declaration of Independence or Constitution like ours without a Judeo-Christian history before, but for the sake of this extreme ethics quiz we’ll pretend like it’s an irrelevant detail.

Hm? That’s what I had already assumed. I was taking your scenarios to be about general practices, not just isolated cases–meaning we would be either taking ALL children away from gender-binary homes, or ALL children away from gender-neutral homes. There are obviously many more families in the US like #1 then there are like #2, so #1 would cause the most harm. But obviously, both scenarios would be unethical.

“I am not going to foreclose that choice based on an arbitrary assignment of gender at birth based on an inspection of their genitals.””

I do not believe that she knows what arbitrary means. By definition, “arbitrary” involves randomness. The assigning of the label “boy” only to people who posses a penis, and girl to only those that don’t, is very much the opposite of random. Or arbitrary. For it to be arbitrary, there’d have to be just as much chance that penis person is labeled a girl, as there is that he’d be labeled a boy.

I have a hard time taking groups that insist on redefining words seriously.

I would argue that “arbitrary” doesn’t necessarily, by definition, require randomness–just lack of reason or justification.

If, whenever I don’t know the answer to a multiple-choice question, I choose the answer “B”, that’s an arbitrary decision. There’s no reason to choose “B”, but it’s not random because I have pre-determined that I will choose “B” whenever I don’t know the answer. It’s not random.

In her case, I think she is asserting that “having a penis” is not a valid reason to assign “male” as the gender, nor is “having a vagina” a valid reason to assign “female” as the gender. Same for “XY” and “XX” chromosomes, respectively. Thus, to her it is an arbitrary decision rather than a reasoned/justifiable one.

“My name is spelled without capital letters. People make many assumptions about why that is. Here is the story. I have always signed my name without capital letters. When I was taking a Master of Laws degree in 1990, I had letterhead designed and my name was in lower case. I liked it, so I continued it when I returned to private practice in 1992. What an uproar! Lawyers called me up to say that they had a vote in their firm about why I chose that spelling; a court rejected an Order because my name was not properly spelled; and the local queer newspaper refused for years to spell my name without capital letters.

I realized that I had a perfect illustration of how we react when someone moves even a tiny bit away from a norm of behaviour, even with respect to something that has no impact on anyone else. So I have kept that spelling, and I tell this story in unlearning oppression workshops.”

What a free thinker.

The oddest part is that she would refuse to conform her name to the more accepted spelling convention on a legal document, have said document rejected, and yet continue to re-tell the story as though it’s laudable. If the Order in question was work she was doing while acting as her own counsel, that’s one thing, but if she worked on it on behalf of a client it’s COMPLETELY inexcusable.

Obviously it has impact on a lot of people because she has had a lot of feedback giving her perfectly reasonable explanations why it doesn’t work using available systems.
But, No! We have to break systems because we’re a special little princess with issues. Break it just because it exists. I see kids in Kindergarten do it. It must be a developmental stage she never completed. They never get tired and give up. They never let up. They never allow themselves to consider other opinions. They have assumed the moral high ground in their head and it cannot be undone.

James M. slam dunked the real problem:
“Many children want nothing more than to fit in with their peers. Issues of popularity and social acceptance cause many more children distress than issues of gender identity ever have. ”

I would have started with ‘invariably’, although it may be a stretch, rather than ‘many’, but the suicide rate amongst children that feel they just don’t fit in with their pears and aren’t one of the in group is terrifying. Obviously this includes those who have gender/attraction issues, but it is no where near restricted to that group. I suspect – yep, that means I’m shooting from lip without anything to back me up – that the suicide rate amongst LGBTQIA’s is more a product of this than of persecution by cisgender people (*) and that the orientation issue is effectively little different to any of the other issues that lead children/adults to social isolation or depression.

These parents are literally setting their children up for suicide.

(*) No, I’m not trying to suggest that transgender people are never victimized by the cisgender and that it’s all in their mind.

Speaking of SNL, can you imagine the accusations of bigotry they would receive if they were to do that “It’s just Pat” skit nowadays? I’m honestly waiting for these cretins to call for boycotting Bugs Bunny because he dressed up like a girl, which I’m certain someone will insist is insulting to trans people.

Bugs Bunny dressing as “a girl” was just an expression of his gender-fluid identity. Bugs is fine, but your casual assumption that a cocktail dress is a female garment is oppression. Please report to the nearest re-education center for correction.

If John Lennon were alive today, he might add a verse to his terrible song “Imagine”:

Imagine there’s no gender/ I wonder if you can
Ringo would wear a sports bra/ And Yoko would be a man
Imagine all the Girl Scouts/ Watching grown men pee
You-hoo-hoo/ You may say that I’m a dreamer/ But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us/ And the world will go man-bun

As I ponder this brave new world, where all manner of sexual deviation is supposed to be accepted, I wonder what will come next.

There have already been leftist websites posting articles that defend pedophilia. I think Salon was one. And Cosmo recently had a story extolling the virtues of a woman having sex with her dad.

People say it’s hypocritical for those with sexual kinks to “keep them in the closet.” I would never advocate anyone not being true to themselves, but my definition of manners is the attempt to make others feel comfortable. And some of these people are being downright ridiculous.

I may have a foot fetish, but I’m not going to force everyone else to watch me suck my wife’s toes at a restaurant.

And I may be into BDSM, but only a cad would wear a dog collar and assless chaps to Aunt Zoe’s funeral.

So where does it end? And, more importantly, how do I lobby to get foot fetishists added to the alphabet soup? But then, if I do that I’ve got to be inclusive of all sexualities, so we’ll have to add shoe fetish (which is different than a foot fetish, you backwards Klansman!); BDSM necrophilia and sounding (look it up).

That would leave us with the acronym:
LGBTQFFSFBDSMNS.

Sorry, midget fetishists. Until you start calling yourselves, “people of short stature fetishists,” you’re banned from the letterhead.

So gay people are just dabbling in a “sexual taste” and it’s not their sexual identity because they don’t identify as a different sex? Then what the hell was all the marching for if it’s just a quick way to get their rocks off? I thought it was about them getting the opportunity to live out their lifestyle; — i.e. their identity. Is being gay just a “sexual taste,” merely a means by which to curl one’s toes before getting back to the real world?

Ditto for BDSM folks; many will tell you they live that life 24/7, and that it’s their lifestyle. Is that just a sexual taste, too? Lots of people in that lifestyle and the gay lifestyle would vehemently disagree.

So, in the context of this discussion: if gay people are allowed to express their lifestyle at a dinner party by holding hands, or even French-kissing; or if Uncle Biff (who identifies as Aunt Gertrude) wants to be allowed to piss in the same bathroom as your 8-year-old Girl-Scout daughter — and anyone who feels uncomfortable about any of it can go to hell because you’re all a bunch of intolerant, backward Trumpet hillbillies — then why shouldn’t Uncle Leopold (who identifies as Slave Lee) be allowed to kneel before Aunt Wanda (who identifies as Mistress Vonda), kiss her feet, and expose his ass for punishment? Why wouldn’t they be extended this same courtesy to live out the lifestyle by which they identify? I don’t care if anyone else thinks it’s weird or creepy; they need to get over their bigoted ways against the LGBTQFFSFBDSMNS community.

To that end, let’s talk about the institution of marriage. Now, I don’t like the idea of our government doling out special treatment to some groups and not others, so I’m all for anyone in any kind of relationship (gay, straight, poly, BDSM) to be allowed the same legal entitlements afforded to straight married couples. But why is it necessary to literally change the definition of an institution that has been a staple of human society since the beginning of civilization? If nobody is legally being discriminated against, what’s the problem?

I can snort a line of cocaine and call it Holy Communion, and make the exact same arguments as those who pushed for gay marriage. “This is my way of accepting the body of Christ. I don’t care if this goes against what you think Communion should be. Love of Peruvian flake wins, you bigoted, Trumpet, hillbilly, sexist, deplorable, inscrutable, easily-refutable moron!”

But regardless how bigoted Trumpet hillbilly sexist deplorables like me think, we are now in the new paradigm, and we’ll never get the shit back in the horse. So let’s embrace it.

I want to marry my grown son. Having sex with a parent is apparently all the rage, according to Cosmo and Jezebel. So maybe in a few years, I’ll get to marry my own son.

Actually, I think we can have even more fun than that. Pedophilia is fast becoming hip as well. Salon did indeed post a story titled “I’m a Pedophile but Not a Monster” but later took it down. Guardian ran a story claiming there is “not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.”

So the way things seem to be headed, I can have another kid and marry him/her/ver or her when he/she/ze is 6 years old — or %$& years old, if my kid identifies with symbols and not numbers.

And any argument you have against any of this will be countered by the EXACT argument made in favor of gay marriage: “We don’t care if you think it’s disgusting, or if it goes against that backward thing you call tradition. Love wins.”

Gay marriage proponents sneered anytime someone mentioned a slippery slope. Well, just a few years later, we’re reading in Cosmo a woman extolling the rhapsodies of tossing her dad’s salad. We’re having parents dress up their six-year-old boys in makeup and drag — and the establishment media is celebrating their “bravery.” We’re getting more and more articles from leftist sources pushing the idea that messing with kids might not really be all that bad.

There have already been leftist websites posting articles that defend pedophilia. I think Salon was one.

Salon did not defend pedophilia. They defended better social and legal treatment of pedophiles, so that they can get the help they need. They never defended the act itself, and in fact wholeheartedly condemned it.

I’ve heard about the Cosmo controversy–and it does sound gross and sensationalistic–but I doubt it actually advocated incest. I’d need to read the article, but I’m not up to entering the necessary search terms into the Google machine this morning.

I agree that this parent is irresponsibly selfish. She’s also probably a rotten liar. Who wants to bet the mom won’t give the kid “Straight White Male” as an option?

(Is the parent a woman? Is this kid adopted? Who is the father?)

I remember scoffing at the idea that LGBT parents would try to force their ideology on their kids. Looks like I was wrong. Meanwhile, these same people are saying anyone who raises their kids catholic is committing child abuse.

More Pronoun Trouble, I see…makes me hope that eventually (after civil war), societal pressure to simplify will prevail, and we’ll be left with one universally applicable-to-all-gender-identities-and-in-all-cases-and-tenses pronoun. And the Controllers of Truth In Recorded Human Endeavors (previously known by that too-gender-specifically-suggestive term, “h*story”) will be able to make Marion Barry a hero for first using said pronoun – as in:
“Bitch set me up!”

Of course, the new universal pronoun will need many “helper words” and verb-conjugation revisions, to secure proper use. For example – using the first sentence of my comment above: “More Pronoun Trouble, [bitch writing this] sees…makes [bitch writing this] hope that eventually (after civil war), societal pressure to simplify will prevail, and [all bitches, all over] will be left with one…”

[forehead-thumping – oh well, bitch is a new day] I should have used a more relevant example – mama katy’s spirited, loving defense of bitch’s treatment of bitch’s offspring: “Bitch is up to Searyl to decide how bitch identifies, when bitch is old enough to develop bitch’s own gender identity. [Bitch one] am not going to foreclose that choice based on an arbitrary assignment of gender at birth based on an inspection of bitch’s genitals.”

Are any of those human languages that do not use gendered pronouns currently the primary language of nations or nation-states that are among the world’s leading economic, military, or cultural powers? Really, just asking. But the answer might make an additional relevant point.

This bill prohibits the word “sex” or “gender” from being interpreted to mean “gender identity,” and requires “man” or “woman” to be interpreted to refer exclusively to a person’s genetic sex, for purposes determining the meaning of federal civil rights laws or related federal administrative agency regulations or guidance. No federal civil rights law shall be interpreted to treat gender identity or transgender status as a protected class, unless it expressly designates “gender identity” or “transgender status” as a protected class.

Then there’s the amendment to the NDAA prohibiting some medically necessary treatment of trans service people, veterans, or their families

First of all, the most obvious pronunciation of Searyl is “cereal.”
That’s what I thought Jack was going for as a humorous example of stupid parenting.

However, the implications concerning the trans community, from what I understand via first-hand reports and comments by trans acquaintances, are off in the wrong direction entirely. The trans community is apparently sitting up at night trying to figure out ways to look ridiculous and make public nuisances of themselves. is off-base, but understandable.

Transgender is not drag. It is not cross-dressing or male-or-female impersonating. For most, they have spent their entire lives hiding. Feeling (knowing) yourself to be something entirely other than you appear, to be treated as a freak, beneath contempt, by everyone … including those gay people who are still so insecure as to need some Other to pick on … does not lend itself to exposing yourself to the public in any capacity, much less as ridiculous. The only attention transgender people have received — up to a very few years ago — is being at the top of the suicide lists, Number One on the Kill-Yourself Charts. The spotlight is brand new, the community is few. As such, it is swelled by the more confident and far more politicized gay and lesbian groups, supporters, and amusement- or attention-seeking camp followers. The few trans spokesfolks have put themselves forward with much courage and not a little trepidation.

People like Searyl’s horrible mother have jumped on the bandwagon and are determined to drive it right into the crowds, no matter who or how many they injure. But she is not the worst.

Please, stop a moment and remember that it is the media — the media we have learned to mistrust (no? not yet? where have you been?) — that is the main source of our knowledge, and that that “knowledge” is the fruit of a rotten tree. By nature, the media pull facts out of context, twist them, play with them as an infant plays with a new dangle on the mobile over its crib. If that is not enough to sell their wares, they flat out lie. Yes, the publicist has the right to publicize whatever it chooses (within legal bounds) and I’m sure this woman is who and what she says she is. That doesn’t mean she stands for anyone, anywhere, much less the majority of the transgender community.